
I LIBRARY OF CONGRESS. ! 

# _ 


f <^«/,. T6 . 2,5 
jj/ le /7> £ 7 M 3 


# 

# 


! . •. ' IU3 

| UNITED STATES OK AMERICA, t 













THE MAVERICK BRIDGE. 

[PROPOSED.] 


A 11 G IT M E N T 

BEFORE THE 



AT THE 

CHARLESTOWN NAVY YARD, 


SEPTEMBER 16, TO OCTOBER 7, 1868. 



CHARLESTOWN : 

PRESS OF THE BUNKER HILL AURORA. 

1869. 










^ ^, \fy> , 

















♦ 


\ 


PRELIMINARY NOTE. 


The Legislature of Massachusetts, at its annual session in 1863, 
passed an act to authorize the erection of a bridge across the 
“water between the mainland in the city of Boston and East 
Boston,” upon such a plan and mode of construction as the May¬ 
or and Aldermen, “ on consultation with the Harbor Commission¬ 
ers shall direct or approve,” 

The Committee of the Legislature, to whom the subject was re¬ 
ferred, after a hearing of parties, believed to be somewhat incom¬ 
plete, declined to report a bill in favor of the project, and subse¬ 
quently the friends of the measure obtained leave of the House of 
Representatives to introduce a bill, which was finally passed over 
the veto of the Governor and became a law of the State according 
to the terms of the Constitution. 

As the line of the proposed structure is over the navigable 
waters of the harbor, in relation to which the government of the 
United States has absolute control, the parties deemed it necessary 
to obtain the consent of Congress to the measure before proceeding 
with the work of construction. Application was therefore made 
to Congress, at its next session, for the assent of the government to 
the proposed Maverick Bridge. Coming before Congress in this 


4 


PRELIMINARY NOTE. 


form, after a brief investigation of the subject the following Joint 
Eesolution was passed and approved by the President: 

In the Senate of the United States, 

July 1, 1868. 

Joint Eesolution : in relation to the Bridge in Boston Harbor. 

Be it resolved by the Senate and House of Bepresentatives of 
the United States of America, in Congress assembled, That the 
Secretary of the Navy shall detail two competent and impartial 
officers of the Navy, and the Secretary of War shall detail a com- 
petent.and impartial officer of the Engineer Corps, who shall com¬ 
pose a Commission, whose duty it shall be to make a careful ex¬ 
amination of the harbor of Boston, and shall report to Congress, 
at its next session, in what manner the commerce of said harbor 
and the interests of the United States in the Navy Yard at 
Charlestown, will be affected by the construction of a bridge over 
the water between the mainland in the city of Boston and East 
Boston, in the manner provided in an act of the legislature of the 
State of Massachusetts, entitled “ An act to incorporate the Mav¬ 
erick Bridge Companyand no bridge shall be erected by said 
company across said water until the assent of Congress shall be 
given thereto. 

Passed by the House of Bepresentatives, July 1, 1868. 


Under this authority, Bear Admirals S. H. Stringham and 
Chas. H. Bell, and Brevet Brigadier General J. H. Simpson of the 
Engineer Corps, were appointed to compose the commission. 

The Commission assembled at the rooms of the Naval Library 
and Institute, Charlestown Navy l r ard, on the 16th September, 
1868, and continued its sessions until 7th October. Judge 
Wright and Mr. Emery of Boston, appeared for the Bridge Cor¬ 
poration ; Wm. W. Wheildon for the City of Charlestown and 
other parties ; James B. Tiiayer for the Tudor Co. and Wharf 
Owners in Boston. There were also present at times during the 



PRELIMINARY NOTE. 


5 


hearing, Mr. Quincy, Mr. Sewall and Mr. Lincoln, of the Har¬ 
bor Commissioners; Mr. Hill, of the Board of Trade ; Mayor 
Sanders, of Cambridge; Dr. J. E. Bartlett, President of the 
Mystic Biver Corporation, and others. 

On the first day of the session the Commissioners announced 
their determination to hear first the friends of the bridge, and to 
be furnished with a plan and location of the proposed structure, 
in order that they might have something definite before them ; but 
through the whole hearing this direction of the Commissioners was 
avoided and not complied with. The Board adjourned from Thurs¬ 
day to Monday, 21st, and again from Monday to Thursday, 24th, 
at the request of the friends of the bridge. On the 24th, they 
were not ready, and Mr. Emery presented a series of points for 
the Commissioners to decide. The Commission again decided to 
have presented to them definitely the location of the bridge, its 
general form and character, and to receive evidence pertaining to 
the subjects referred to them. The advantages and benefits of the 

i 

bridge to other interests, to increase the value of real estate or 
vacant lands, did not come within the scope of their inquiry. On 
Friday, Judge Wright formally presented his case, by argument 
and explanation of several plans, after which the Commissioners 
decided that he should present a written statement on Monday. 

On Monday morning, 28th, Judge Wright read a statement in 
behalf of the corporators, stating that they had not made a location 
and had not adopted any plan of a bridge, and could not furnish 
any without consultation with the Mayor and Aldermen of Boston, 
and the Harbor Commissioners, and that if a plan were furnished 
it might be premature and labor lost. The plans which had been 
shown were those used before the legislative committee. Judge 
Wright then proceeded to explain T. Willis Pratt’s plan of a 
bridge, which Mr. Pratt himself and Judge Wright himself had 
severally previously done, ending as before with the statement 
that the corporation did not commit itself to that plan or to any 
other. Here it was supposed the case for the bridge was conclud¬ 
ed, and the Commissioners requested the opponents of the bridge 
to proceed with their testimony. 


6 


PRELIMINARY NOTE. 


The Commission had been in session for three weeks, the friends 
of the bridge having consumed an unusual share of the time by 
their delays, while not a day was granted to of asked for by the 
opposing parties. The latter went on with the hearing, at the 
request of the Commissioners, holding in their hands at the time, 
a written protest against the incomplete and indefinite manner in 
which the bridge case had been presented by the exhibition and 
explanation of plans and projects which they expressly declined to 
sanction or approve. In consideration of the wish of the Board to 
proceed with the hearing, the protest was not placed on file, and 
the parties opposed to the bridge proceeded with the case, with¬ 
holding nothing necessary to it. 

Tuesday, 29th, was occupied by Mr. Wheildon ; Wednesday, by 
Mr. Thayer ; Thursday, by the Harbor Commissioners ; Friday, 
by Mr. Matthews, President of the Winnisemmet Co., and by Dr. 
Bartlett, President of the Mystic Biver Corporation ; on Saturday 
Mr. Wheildon presented a letter from Collector Bussell. 

On Monday, Mr Thayer presented a remonstrance from Boston 
merchants, and Mr. Wheildon a communication from Prof. Peirce ; 
on Tuesday, Mr. Hill read a report from the Board of Trade, and 
a valuable paper from Com. Bodgers was read. 

On Wednesday, which had been named as probably the last day 
of the hearing, Mr. Wright again appeared with a mass of 
papers, composed largely of extracts from various printed reports 
of committees, engineers and others, in relation to the commercial 
importance of East Boston, and other extracts relative to the build¬ 
ing of bridges and their superiority for certain purposes over fer¬ 
ries. Mr. Wright then proceeded at length, by an elaborate writ¬ 
ten argument, with certificates and memorials from interested par¬ 
ties, to controvert and call in question statements put in on the 
other side, and especially those made by Gen. Foster, Prof. Peirce, 
the Harbor Commissioners and others, commenting upon some of 
these in such severe and unjustifiable terms as to call forth re¬ 
marks from the Commissioners and other parties in the room. 

The course of proceeding, on the part of the counsel for the bridge 


PRELIMINARY NOTE. 


T 


was objected to, and especially the unfair manner in which he had 
avoided the direction of the Commissioners, by withholding his 
whole case until the testimony on the other side had mostly been 
given in, gaining to himself by a trick the closing of the hearing ; 
thus depriving the other side of any opportunity to answer 
his arguments, expose their fallacy, show the misapplication of au¬ 
thorities, and the errors of statement. No attention was paid to 
these objections, nor any suggestion made in regard to the of¬ 
fensive language towards Prof. Peirce. After a brief consultation, 
the Commissioners, by the exercise of a degree of courtesy to which 
he had no claim, the counsel was allowed to proceed and finish his 
statement. One of the gentlemen on the opposite side, immediate¬ 
ly rose to make some reply, and ask for an opportunity to be heard ; 
but the President of the Board decided that the hearing was closed 
and no attempt was made to press anything further upon the Com¬ 
missioners,—so that a portion of the following argument was not 
read to the Commissioners or placed on their files. 



ARGUMENT. 


Mr. President and 

Gentlemen of the Commission : 

As this is not to be regarded in any sense as a judicial proceed¬ 
ing, but simply as a Commission of Inquiry, it will not be expected 
that I should follow the remarks of the counsel for the bridge, (who 
was checked by the President in his argument,) in his exaltation 
of the Maverick Bridge and the important consequeuces to follow 
in the distant future from its erection. 1 expect to be held by the 
rulings and limitations of the Commission, or overstepping these, 
to be called back to the record. It will be my endeavor in no de¬ 
gree to transgress upon the determinations of the Commission. 

DUTIES OF THE COMMISSION. 

The duties of the Commission are distinctly set forth in the joint 
resolution of Congress, under which it was appointed, namely, “to 
make a careful examination of the harbor of Boston,” and “report 
to Congress, at its next sessiou, in what manner the commerce of 
said harbor and the interests of the United States in the Navy Yard 
at Charlestown, will be affected by the construction of a bridge 
over the water between the mainland in the city of Boston and 
East Boston, in the manner provided in an act of the legislature of 
Massachusetts,” &c., and it is added, “and no bridge shall be 
2 


10 


ARGUMENT AGAINST THE 


* 


erected by said company across said water until the assent of Con¬ 
gress shall be given thereto.’’ 

By these terms and limitations, the duty of the Commissioners 
is primarily to make an examination of the harbor of Boston, for 
two specific purposes, namely, 1, to ascertain “in what manner the 
commerce of said harbor,” and 2, “the interests of the United 
States in the Navy Yard at Charlestown, will be affected by the 
construction of a bridge over the water between the mainland in 
the city of Boston and East Boston,” and secondly, make report of 
the same to Congress. 

AUTHORITY OF THE GENERAL GOVERNMENT. 

The right of the general government to paramount control over 
the navigable waters of the country, is not in this case to be con¬ 
sidered an open question. Its authority under the constitutional 
powers to regulate commerce, is admitted by all commentators on 
the Constitution of the United States, and has been repeatedly 
settled by decisions of the highest courts of law ; and finally in 
this case, by the direct exercise of the power of Congress, in the 
passage of the resolution already quoted, forbidding the erection 
of the proposed bridge. 

If this were not so—if Congress had not complete and unques- 

♦ 

tioned control over Boston harbor as a portion of the navigable 
waters of the country, open under necessary restrictions to the 
commerce of the world,—then it had no just power to authorize 
this Commission, and its proceedings would be of no validity or 
force, even were its recommendations to be adopted. Fortunately, 
as has already been said, the case is perfectly clear and the right 
and authority, and it may be added the' duty of Congress in the 
matter, is unquestionable. In order to its future action ou this 
subject, it authorized this Commission, which will report to Con¬ 
gress at its approaching session. 

From what has been said by the President, I presume the Com¬ 
mission expect me, this morning, to present the case of the City of 
Charlestown ; but this I have proposed to myself to defer to a later 
period in the hearing. The interests of the City of Charlestown, 


PROPOSED MAVERICK BRIDGE. 


11 


as a municipality, are general and not particular or individual. 
Her relations to the commerce of the harbor are of vital impor¬ 
tance to her business and prosperity, and are to be presented by 
statement and argument, rather than statistics, which pertain es¬ 
pecially to individual ownership and enterprise. 

TESTIMONY OF GENERAL FOSTER. 

The statement read before the Commission yesterday, from Maj. 
Gen. Foster, a gentleman so well known to the members of this 
Board and so intimately associated in service with one of them, 
was so full and complete in reference to the character of the 
proposed bridge, and its effects upon the harbor, its navigation 
and anchorage, and upon the great proportion of the commerce of 
the port to be interrupted by it, that it renders somewhat unneces¬ 
sary a considerable amount of testimony which might otherwise be 
presented to the Board. The statement of Gen. Foster received, 
also, perhaps unwittingly, so cordial and hearty, and I have no 
doubt sincere an endorsement—just I know it was—from the gen¬ 
tleman on the other side, that, almost alone, it seemed conclusively 
to answer both questions of inquiry submitted by Congress to this 
Commission. And I desire, at this time, to call the attention of 
the Commission to the fact that the statements made by Gen. Fos¬ 
ter are, in their essential particulars, confirmed by the testimony 
of Prof. Peirce, the present head of the United States Coast Sur¬ 
vey, whose attendance here I hope the Commission will invite before 
the hearing is closed. 0 The opinions of Prof. Peirce, so far as they 
have been given by him on the subject, are briefly stated in the 
message of the Governor to the Legislature, referred to by Gen. 
Foster and in possession of the Commission. I also desire to say, 
in this connection, that the views of Mr. James B. Francis, of 
Lowell, one of the ablest and most reliable civil engineers in the 
country, not connected with the Engineer Corps of the United 

* At a subsequent stage of the hearing, a communication from Prof. 
Peirce was presented and read by Mr. Wheildon. 


12 


ARGUMENT AGAINST THE 


States, as expressed in the legislature of Massachusetts, during the 
pendency of the bridge bill, will as soon as received, be presented 
to the Board and will be found to be in complete concurrence with 
the views so ably presented by Gen. Foster and confirmed by 
Prof. Peirce . 0 

On some of the most essential points, therefore, in this inquiry, 
the testimony referred to, must be regarded as most complete and 
satisfactory—so that, in fact, it only remains for the parties op¬ 
posed to this bridge to show the nature and character of the com¬ 
merce of Boston harbor to be affected by it, its extent and impor¬ 
tance, and the wrong it will do to cities, towns, corporations and 
individuals, whose rights and privileges, enjoyed for centuries, are 
to be impaired or destroyed by it. 

IMPORTANCE OF COMMERCE. 

Commerce, if not the very basis of the wealth and prosperity of 
the country, is one of the most important means of both, and in 
this is found the reason why all the great interests in this part of 
the Commonwealth, even to a greater distance from Boston than at 
first appears, are opposed to the erection of a barrier, whatever 
may be its peculiar character as to form or structure, across an 
important portion of Boston harbor. Not only the immediate in¬ 
terests of navigation, wharf property, shipbuilding and the trades, 
employments and traffic attendant upon these, but large producing, 
manufacturing, warehousing and transportation interests, near and 
remote, are equally opposed and almost equally to be prejudiced by 
the obstruction to commerce, contemplated in the grant for the 
erection of the Maverick Bridge. Whatever may be said to the 
contrary, these all regard an additional impediment to the naviga¬ 
tion of Boston harbor, as a measure fraught with trouble, delay, 
expense and danger,—to be annually increased, if commerce in¬ 
creases ; to be tediously endured, if commerce should, as it most 
probably would do, diminish under the annoyance and cost. 

* A report of the speech of Mr. Francis was presented by Mr. 
Thayer, and a letter from Mr. Francis, endorsing the printed report 
was presented by Mr. Wheildon. 


PROPOSED MAVERICK BRIDGE. 


13 


FITCHBURG RAILROAD CORPORATION. 

The members of the Commission must have observed, since their 
arrival in this vicinitv, if not before known to them, that four of 
the great railroad lines of Massachusetts, starting from Boston, 
cross the Charles River above two or more of the present bridges, 
and are in some sense as long wharves to the interior towns, in 
northerly, northwesterly, and northeasterly directions. These rail¬ 
road lines are the Fitchburg, Boston and Maine, Eastern and Low¬ 
ell. Their passenger depots and freight houses are in the city of 
Boston, excepting the Fitchburg road, whose freight bouses are in 
Charlestown, and the Eastern whose freight houses are at East 
Boston ; but a large portion of the heavy freighting business of 
three of these great railroad lines is done on their wharves and 
roadways in Charles River, and cannot be conveniently, if at all, 
done anywhere else. It will appear by statements which will be 
presented to the Board that not less than one thousand cargoes of 
freight, of the most bulky merchandize, which could not possibly 
be accommodated in any other part or portion of Boston harbor, at 
however much additional cost of wharfage, transportation and 
delivery, are annually landed on these wharves and forwarded by 
railroad trains to Lowell, Lawrence, Fitchburg and numerous other 
towns in and beyond the borders of the State. This great com¬ 
merce is carried on almost entirely by coasting vessels, comprising 
barques, brigantines, three-masted schooners and schooners, and 
consists chiefly of coal, lumber, lime, salt, plaster, pig iron, bricks, 
sand, stone, &c., and occasional cargoes of railroad iron. These 
vessels are now compelled to pass through two, three, four and five 


bridges, viz : 

Fitchburg, through 2 bridges. 

Boston & Maine, “ 3 

Eastern, “ 4 “ 

Lowell, “ 5 


To accommodate the 512 vessels which landed cargoes on the 
Fitchburg wharves, in 1867, the draws of two bridges were required 


14 


ARGUMENT AGAINST THE 


to be opened one thousand and twenty-four times each, or together 
two thousand and forty-eight times. Of these 512 vessels, 204 
had cargoes of coal, the price of which was increased to the con¬ 
sumer by the charge of three cents per ton for each bridge, mak¬ 
ing the amount paid for that year on the article of coal alone, de¬ 
livered on the wharves of the Fitchburg railroad, $4,564.52. For 
the same amount delivered to the Boston & Maine road, the charge 
would be $6,846.28, and if at the Lowell Bailroad, it would 
amount to $11,413.80. 

The proposed bridge across the harbor, if erected, would have 
the effect largely to increase these amounts, for whatever means 
were adopted to facilitate the passage of vessels through the draw, 
there would inevitably be much dela^, both from their number and 
the necessity of making the further passage amidst baffling winds 
towards the first bridge over Charles Biver ; or if steam tugs were 
employed for this purpose, the cost of the cargo, whether lumber 
or coal, would be further considerably increased. So that a bridge 
so far below any of the present bridges, could not be passed by 
vessels going farther up, at the ordinary rate of three cents per ton 
for coal, and charges for other cargoes proportional to that ; the 
shippers’ charge could hardly be less, to cover expenses and delay, 
than four times three cents ; and would inevitably prove in the 
case of vessels bound to the limit of navigation, absolutely prohib¬ 
itory. Judgiug from the data presented it would seem that this 
result must follow. 

Without any additional obstruction to navigation, in the harbor 
or river, the increase of commercial business connected with the 
Fitchburg Bailroad, is stated by the Superintendent of that road 
to be ten per cent., for the past year, which- would make the num¬ 
ber of cargoes for this year about 563, and the same rate of in¬ 
crease would double the number in about seven years. No such 
annual increase as this could be calculated upon if the proposed 
obstruction should be placed across the harbor. 

The Fitchburg Bailroad is fifty miles in length, and has a capi¬ 
tal stock account of over three and a half millions of dollars, and 


PROPOSED MAVERICK BRIDGE. 


15 


carries over its road more than half a million tons of merchandize 
per aunum. The interest of this great corporation in the free nav¬ 
igation of the harbor is further increased by the fact that its 
freight tracks have been extended along all the deep water wharves 
in Charlestown below the bridges, and into and through nearly the 
whole length of the navy yard—which extension is mentioned in 
the annual report of the corporation for the year 1863, herewith 
submitted, as follows : 

“ By a Legislative act of 1862, the Corporation was authorized 
to extend its railroad from its then terminus east of Warren Ave¬ 
nue, in Charlestown, to the bounds of the Navy Yard, in that city. 
Subsequently by orders from Washington, the Bailroad was extend¬ 
ed into the Navy Yard, so that munitions can now be delivered 
by continuous Bailroad from any of the New England States, the 
State of New York and the West, into the great Naval Depot of 
the United States in the East. Furthermore, by this extension 
about all the deep water in Charlestown, can also be reached by the 
railroad, which, with the spacious wharves for vessels of the largest 
burthen that line the shore at this locality, will enable shippers 
to transfer merchandize direct from cars to the ship.” 

These tracks, as stated by the Directors of the corporation, ex¬ 
tend to the wharves above the Navy Yard and below the Charles 
Biver Bridge, and provide transportation for all the ice shipped 
from Charlestown—which is well known to be a large, increasing 
and important branch of commerce. The importance of the con¬ 
nection of this road with the Navy Yard is beyond question a 
fact which will be duly appreciated by the Commissioners in con¬ 
nection with the free navigation of the harbor. It is also to be 
stated in this place, that a branch of the Fitchburg Bailroad, 
known as the Watertown Branch, connects the U. S. Arsenal at 
Watertown, with the Navy Yard, and of course with the harbor 
and by means of the harbor with the forts for its defence. It is 
not necessary, before this Commission, to enlarge upon the impor¬ 
tance of these significant connections with the naval and rnuni- 
tionary establishments of the general government. 


16 


ARGUMENT AGAINST THE 


It will be seen by the statements here made, together with a 
knowledge of the extensive wharf property of the Fitchburg Rail¬ 
road, how largely the interests of this corporation, and the vast in¬ 
land traffic provided for by its tracks, are connected with the free 
navigation of Boston harbor ; and how disastrously these would 
be affected by any further obstruction to the commerce of the port. 
The Fitchburg road is, in fact, the great wharf of a large section of 
the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, and to a considerable extent 
by its interior connections, of portions of the States of New Hamp¬ 
shire and Vermont, and the property and capital invested in its 
operations, connected with the commerce of the harbor, amounts 
at this time, to millions of dollars. 

BOSTON AND MAINE RAILROAD. 

Many of the statements which have been made in reference to 
the Fitchburg Railroad Corporation, and its relations to the com'' 
merce of the harbor of Boston, are equally applicable to the busi¬ 
ness of this corporation. Its freight houses are mostly within the 
limits of the city, from which all merchandize not intended for 
shipping is delivered, and where also such merchandize as comes to 
it by land conveyance, is received. But, as is the case with the 
Fitchburg Railroad, its roadway across the river, built on piles, is 
five rods wide, and this, besides the large wharves of the corpor¬ 
ation is allowed by the legislature to be used for wharf purposes as 
regards every description of merchandize and material intended to 
be transported over the Company’s railroad. With the limitation 
mentioned, the whole space at the disposition of the tw T o corpora¬ 
tions is fully occupied, and means of transportation have to be 
annually increased to enable the companies to do their large freight 
business. 

The interior traffic of the Boston and Maine Railroad Corpora¬ 
tion is through an entirely different section of the State from that 
of the Fitchburg line, reaching as it does by its main track, and 
branch roads, portions of the State of New Hampshire. It is, like 
the Fitchburg and other railroads touching the tide-waters of the 


PROPOSED MAVERICK BRIDGE. 17 

harbor, the great wharf-privilege of a country of more than a hun¬ 
dred miles in extent, at which all the heavy and bulky water-borne 
freight, such as coal, lumber, plaster of Paris, lime, pig iron, salt, 
&c., &c M is received. This immense amount of freight, consisting 
of fuel and raw material for the general use of the population, for 
farming and more especially for manufacturing purposes, as we have 
already intimated, were the navigation of Charles River to be 
closed, could not be received on any wharves of the harbor within 
the limits of the city proper, and would be compelled to seek some 
other place of deposit and some other route to the consumers. 
The wharf property and space in Boston harbor is very lim¬ 
ited ; the English steamers, it is well known, could not obtain 
wharf accommodations in the city proper, and for some time the 
Glasgow line found accommodations at the Charlestown wharves ; 
and it is very clear that the ample wharf accommodations of Charles 
River, and those to a large extent to be developed on the shores of 
Mystic River, are absolutely indispensable to the commerce of the 
District. These would be rendered less available, and to some ex¬ 
tent almost wholly worthless, by the creation of further obstacles 
to the free navigation of the two rivers, so providentially located, 
so essential to the harbor, and so necessary to its commerce. 

On the line of the Boston and Maine Railroad, as upon the line 
of all the great railroads terminating in Boston, are located not 
merely large manufacturing establishments of various kinds, but 
manufacturing cities and towns, like the cities of Lawrence, 
Lowell, and the towns of Haverhill, Melrose and others. 
With all these the tide-water of Boston harbor is a 
valuable consideration, and with many of them, the 
facilities of navigation and transportation, now enjoyed, 
formed a principal element in determining their location. Any 
additional obstruction in Boston harbor would be more or less em¬ 
barrassing and injurious to their business, by increasing the cost of 
the raw material and transportation and giving advantages 
to rival establishments more favorably located. So that these par¬ 
ties, the recipients and participants in the commerce of Boston, have 
thereby a direct interest in the preservation of Boston harbor. 
3 


18 


ARGUMENT AGAINST THE 


They have invested large sums of money, upon the faith of the gov*- 
ernment, under whese paramount care the navigable waters of the 
harbor and the facilities afforded to commerce, are presumed to be 
secure ; and hardly a greater wrong could be done to them and the 
railroad corporations interested, than in the attempt to take away 
from them or abridge, the rights and privileges, which, according 
to Vattell, “every man inherits from Nature and cannot be justly 
forced to purchase,” and which they have in common with others 
so long enjoyed. 

The Boston and Maine railroad has a capital stock amounting to 
$4,155,700, and carried in 1867, over three hundred and forty 
thousand tons of merchandize over its road. 

Herewith is submitted a brief statement from the President of 
the Boston and Maine Railroad corporation, relative to a portion of 
their inland freight, received at their wharves by water, and of fuel 
and materials, received in the same way for the use of the corpora¬ 
tion in their workshops and in the construction and operation of 
their road. This statement shows that there arrived at the wharves 
of the company, above three bridges during the year ending June 
1, 1868, two hundred and twenty-six vessels, including sixty-one 
cargoes of coal and railroad material for the company, and one 
hundred and sixty-five, cargoes (of which one hundred and thirty- 
four were coal,) for transportation over the road. 

WHJ RF OWNERS OF CHARLESTOWN. 

REMONSTRANCE. 

The undersigned owners and occupants of wharves in the rity 
of Charlestown hereby protest against the erection of the Maverick 
Bridge across Boston harbor from Boston proper to the island of 
East Boston, for the following reasons, viz : 

1. That it will be destructive of the commerce and navigation 
of the District of Boston and Charlestown by placing a barrier 
across the central portion of the harbor, obstructing navigation and 
promoting the filling up of the channel. 

2. That it will contract the wharfage and anchorage of the 
harbor for merchant vessels more than one half (exclusive of the 


PROPOSED MAVERICK BRIDGE. 


19 


Navy Yard,) and tend to reduce the commercial city of Boston to 
a third class seaport. 

3. That as a barrier shutting in the Navy Yard from all free 
access to the sea, it will render that great national establishment 
comparatively useless and cause its abandonment at great cost and 
sacrifice to the government. 

4. That it will, for reasons already stated, greatly impair the 
value of our wharf property and improvements by rendering them 
comparatively useless for commercial purposes. 

5. That it will take away from the undersigned the rights and 
privileges of free access to the ocean over the great highway open 
to the whole world, which we and the property we represent have 
enjoyed for more than two hundred years. 

6. That said proposed bridge will impose heavy damages and 
injuries upon the general government, the Commonwealth and in¬ 
dividuals, absolutely confiscating the property of these parties, 
without any absolute demand set forth by the legislature of “ pub¬ 
lic convenience and necessity,” and without providing for any 
compensation. 

For these and other reasons, not herein stated, we object to and 
protest against the erection of the proposed bridge. 


W. W. Wheildon for Sawyer & 
Hovey’s wharf. 

Gardner Prouty, Agent Da¬ 
mon’s wharf. 

Henry Lyon. 

P. J. Stone. 

Timothy T. Sawyer. 

Mystic Liver Corporation, by 
J. E. Bartlett, President. 
Fitchburg Railroad Corporation 
by Wm. B. Stearns, Presi¬ 
dent. 

Boston & Maine R. R. Co., by 
F. Cogswell, President. 

J. T. & F. L. Gilman. 
Edmands & Co. 

Mass. Glass Co. by G. H. Smith, 
Superintendent. 

Charlestown, August 28, 186 


Franklin Hopkins, Jr. 

G & G. Williams. 

J. W. Brooks. 

Powers & Edwards. 

John Gary. 

Jacob Hittinger. 

Tudor Co., by H. C. Minot, Treas¬ 
urer. 

James Adams. 

George B. Parks. 

Amos Stone. 

James Dana. 

Chester Guild & Sons. 

Nathan Tufts, Jr. 

Fred. J. Williams. 

Oakman & Eldridge. 

F. M. Holmes & Co. 

S. H. Fall. 





20 


ARGUMENT AGAINST THE 


COMMERCE OF CHARLESTOWN. 

Of all the municipalities and corporations interested in Boston 
Harbor and the Commerce of the port, not excepting the city 
of Boston, Charlestown is the most to be affected and the 
most to be injured by the erection of the proposed Maverick 
Bridge — for it shuts her off completely from the sea. Almost 
surrounded by tide water, it is a remarkable fact that every foot 
of her shores, ou either river, is accessible to navigation and is 
improved to a greater or less extent in the interest of commerce. 
The first vessel ever built upon these shores was built by Governor 
Winthrop as early as 1631, within the limits of Charlestown, the 
record of which in Winthrop’s History of New England, reads as 
follows : 

1631. “ July 4. The Governor built a bark at Mystick which 

was launched this day, and called The Blessing of the Bay.” 

This was one hundred and forty-four years before the Declaration 
of American Independence, and from that time to this — two 
hundred and thirty-seven years — Charlestown has enjoyed and 
her commerce profitted by a free and unobstructed communication 
with the sea. This, therefore, is not merely her constitutional 
right, or her right by possession and enjoyment, but in a sense 
peculiar to herself, her inestimable birth-right. The entire popu¬ 
lation of this city —not alone the wharf owners who have protested 
against the obstruction —is interested in its commercial character ; 
and are to be affected, both generally and individually, by every 
facility and every obstruction to the cojnmerce of the port. The 
city itself in its corporate capacity, in the interest of its schools, 
water-works and public institutions, as well as its inhabitants, is 
dependent for its supplies of coal, wood, lumber, lime, grain, flour 
and a hundred other articles of heavy and bulky merchandize, upon 
that commerce which brings all these water-borne to her wharves 
— not to mention, in this connection, the very large foreign com¬ 
merce carried on in the interest of Boston merchants, nor yet the 
large export trade in ice, both of which give employment to the 


PROPOSED MAVERICK BRIDGE. 


21 


inhabitants and are essential elements in the prosperity of the city. 
1 here are also in the city many large manufacturing establishments 
with an aggregate capital of several millions of dollars, each one of 
which is interested in the commerce of the city and will be affected 
injuriously by any further obstructions to navigation. The com¬ 
mercial facilities of Charles River, now improved nearly to their 
full extent, as has been shown to the Board, attention has been 
directed to Mystic River, where a commercial railroad and wharves 
below Chelsea Bridge, are already in process of construction. 
Before many years both shores of this river will be wholly 
devoted to commerce. 

BOSTON HARBOR AND ITS COMMERCE. 

In view of the limited accommodations of Boston harbor, the 
wharves and shores of Charlestown are daily becoming more neces¬ 
sary and more valuable. To shut out any portion of this from the 
sea forever, and thus contract the harbor to a still greater degree, 
if it were intended to destroy it and break up its commerce, would 
be effectual for such a purpose; but with its present commerce, 
the known enterprise and energy of its merchants, its limited 
space of anchorage, wharfage and storage, and in view of what has 
already been done and is now in progress for the enlargement of 
these, it is certain that no reasonable views of the commercial 
interests of the harbor, the State or the nation, can possibly 
justify the erection of the* proposed bridge. No appliances of 
steam power, no contrivances of rafting or scowing, nothing in 
fact within the power of man to create, it is believed, can save 
with another bridge, the commerce of the inland towns; which, 
while it continues, is considered on all hands, a relief to the pres¬ 
sure upon the harbor and wharf accommodations of Boston. A 
bridge — it may almost as well be a dam — across the central 
portion of Boston harbor, as against the commerce of the port, can 
have but one effect; and the assertion that it would be beneficial 
to commerce must have been simply a figure of speech. Such an 
assertion could only be seriously made where pretence is para¬ 
mount. Those who dare all things will hardly dare this; and 


99 


ARGUME NT A G AINST TH E 


that credulity which grows by what it feeds on, will scarcely echo 
so bold a statement. It is the policy of Congress to encourage 
commerce, as it encourages agriculture and manufactures, the twin 
industries of the people ; and it is the policy of nations to keep 
open and unobstructed the highways of the seas. The interests of 
the people; the interests of the government; sound policy, wise 
legislation, public law, all combine in judgment everywhere and 
under all circumstances against unnecessary obstructions to 
navigation. 

Not to dwell longer on these particulars, it has been made 
manifest to the Commission that not merely Boston or Charles¬ 
town, but the whole Commonwealth of Massachusetts and even 
communities beyond the borders of the State, are interested and it 
would seem, have rights in the free navigation of the great central 
harbor of New England. It is to some extent the port of entry for 
this cluster of States; its shores are their wharf accommodations; 
and the store-houses of the city are vast granaries and depots of 
supply for all of them. Those of us who are here today to oppose 
the obstruction contemplated, are sustained in the belief that while 
we are endeavoring to protect and preserve the interests and rights 
of the people in whose behalf we address this Commission, we 
are contemplating no wrong to any other parties. We seek no 
new advantage ; our position is defensive ; our object the best 
public good. In the language of the eminent gentleman at the 
head of the United States Coast Survey, whose communication I 
had the honor to place upon your files on Monday, we believe 
“ that while the proposed bridge may be a small local benefit, it 
must be a great public injury.” 

UNITED STATES NAVY YARD. 

The second point of inquiry charged upon the Commission is as 
to the effect of the proposed bridge upon the interests of the gov¬ 
ernment in the Navy Yard at Charlestown — in which also the 
whole Commonwealth of Massachusetts is interested. The distin¬ 
guished gentlemen of the navy sitting upon this Commission, 
and the eminent officer of the Engineer Corps associated with 


PROPOSED MAVERICK BRIDGE. 


23 


them, need no suggestions on this subject from those who in 
language more specific than polished, are to be considered as 
“ outsiders.” The great value, the great importance, the great 
capacity and completeness of this naval station, and its admirable 
location and adaptation to all the wants and purposes of the general 
government, are well known and appreciated by the Commission, and 
nothing that we can say will add to their estimation of it as a whole. 
They know as well as it can be known, how comparatively valueless 
all this would be without a perfectly free and unobstructed highway, 
adequate to all its purposes, to and from the sea. They know more 
surely than we know, that government would not, and could not, 
continue to use and improve the navy yard as now without such a 
highway ; and they know, too, what the yard would be sure to 
become in case the proposed bridge should be built. 

If, therefore, the government shall determine to have no more 
of its ships built, repaired or re-fitted at this navy yard; to aban¬ 
don its use in these respects, and to maintain it only as a foundry 
and workshop and ropewalk,— an establishment to be used in these 
particulars, in national emergencies,— the interests of the United 
States against building the proposed bridge would be in so far 
lessened. But as the matter stands today, with this important, 
costly and valuable national establishment, almost as complete as 
money, genius, skill and the indomitable efforts of man can make 
it, nothing but the most absolute necessity, not possible to be 
endured or avoided, will justify its spoliation or destruction. This, 
however, is a contingency which the Commission is not called upon 
to consider, and which, it does not appear that Congress itself con¬ 
templates. If' the bridge proposed to be built were across Miller’s 
Creek, or above Chelsea Bridge, or over the water between the city 
of Chelsea and the island of East Boston, in no way interfering 
with the main channel of the harbor, then the Commission could 
readily make report to Congress that it would not directly, perhaps 
in any manner, affect the interests of the United States in the Navy 
Yard at Charlestown. But the erection of a monstrous gateway 
between the Navy Yard and the open sea, is to say the least of it, 
a very different and a more serious thing: not only immediately 


24 


ARGUMENT AGAINST THE 


and directly affecting the interests of the United States in the 
navy yard, but absolutely rendering it comparatively unserviceable 
and worthless to the government. The essential thing to a navy, 
the essential thing to a navy yard, above all other physical and 
geographical necessities, is sea-room, free and unobstructed access 
to the ocean; and this in the location of the Charlestown Navy 
Yard was, beyond all question, the first thing considered, and 
without this, clear and unquestionable, it never would have been 
located in Massachusetts. 

The land comprising the Navy Yard, now only in part, was 
originally some forty-two or three acres in extent—mostly pur¬ 
chased from the owners, and partly, (though in small part only,) 
taken in legal form upon the appraisement ^of a jury. As the 
general government in such cases deals only with the sovereign 
State, jurisdiction over the territory was ceded to the United 
States by act of legislature in June, 1800. Since that time a 
small portion of adjoining wharf property on the south-westerly 
side, has been purchased and the territory of the Navy Yard is now 
estimated, including flats which have been filled up in the lapse of 
years, at eighty-three acres. It has required in the ordinary pro¬ 
gress of so great an enterprise, nearly seventy years to create such 
an establishment, capable of doing the work required by the gov¬ 
ernment, to say nothing of the many millions of dollars expended 
in its enlargement and improvement. The value of the buildings 
and yard today is not less than thirty millions of dollars, and the 
magnificent dry dock alone, were it to be built at this time, would 
add many millions to this amount. In four years, from 1861 to 
1865, the work done at this Navy Yard for the government, in 
building, repairing and re-fitting vessels of war, in cordage, 
ordnance supplies, &c., by an approximate estimate, required 
the expenditure of nearly twenty millions of dollars. 

These brief statements as to the territory, capacity and com¬ 
pleteness of the Navy Yard afford to those not acquainted to some 
extent with its location and general character, a very imperfect 
idea of such an establishment; nevertheless, they indicate how 
from its location to the present time, it has been regarded 


PROPOSED MAVERICK BRIDGE. 


by the government, and with what purpose it has been made the 
recipient of so much interest and the object of such large expendi¬ 
tures of labor and capital. To the Commonwealth of Massachusetts 
it is of peculiar interest and importance — at once her armament 
and her ornament; the defence of her capital and the insignia of 
her rank. It is here in right of her revolutionary eminence, as 
one of the thirteen original States; in compliment to her services >' 
in acknowledgment of her position, it is her right arm, and marks 
in the history of the country the glory of her great son, by whose 
energy and untiring patriotic labors the American navy was 
founded. 0 To ask Massachusetts to surrender this establishment 
is to ask her to go back upon herself; to mar her own history; to 
give up Plymouth Rock; to level Bunker Hill and demolish the 
towering shaft which forever sanctifies the first bloody battle-field 
of the revolution. 

Having placed before the Commission various statements in 
regard to the amount and value of property and commerce to be 
affected by the proposed bridge, it has not seemed to me necessary, 
in view of all the testimony now upon your files, to trouble the 
Commission with any further statements in detail. As well as I 
am able to judge, the whole ground has been covered, the whole 
case completed, so far at least as the opponents of the bridge are 
concerned — for any deficiences on the other side, the case itself 
must be responsible. This bridge, if ever built under the act of 
the legislature, must be built by the concurrent action of three 
distinct parties, only one of which is before this Board in favor of 
it. The Harbor Commissioners are here in impregnable opposition 
to the measure; the Mayor and Aldermen of Boston, now that we 
understand that matter, are not here at all. So that, so far as 
this Commission is concerned, they can know of only one party out 
of the three in support of the bridge ; and that party is perfectly 
helpless without the concurrence of the other two. This, if I 
understand the counsel correctly, is their own interpretation of 
the law; and this is made more apparent by their failure to pre¬ 
sent a plan and location of the proposed structure, required by the 

*Jolm Adams 


4 


26 


ARGUMENT AGAINST THE 


Commission and essential to the inquiry authorized by Congress. 
If the three parties were acting iu concurrence, these would have 
been promptly furnished; as they now stand opposed to each other 
the thing is impossible, and this impossibility, we have a right to 
conclude, is the reason why a plan, location and description of the 
proposed bridge, have not been furnished in compliance with the 
order of the Commission on the first day of its sitting. 

On the other side, I submit, the case is complete and the 
testimony conclusive: it cannot be met, nor controverted, nor 
questioned: there it stands in solid array, and includes all that 
science, skill and judgment, in the highest positions of intelligence 
and responsibility can furnish to throw the light of wisdom and 
experience upon the subject. 

And now, Mr. President and Gentlemen of the Commission, in 
concluding these remarks, permit me to say, that the case presented 
to the Commission by the strength of the authorities, clearness of 
convictions, directness and force of the testimony; the vast inter¬ 
ests to be affected ; rights to be violated ; commerce to be destroyed 
— altogether, is so strong, so complete, and so overwhelming, as to 
justify the epithet “ suicidal,” applied to the measure by the Harbor 
Commissioners. 

If anything could possibly justify the remissness of the parties, 
while the bill was before the legislature, the gross wrong, the gross 
absurdity, and if it were respectful, 1 would say, the gross effront¬ 
ery, of the scheme, as made manifest before this Commission, would 
alone do so, aud must go far to palliate their neglect. It was 
hardly possible for the intelligent parties who have appeared before 
this Commission to realize that a measure so fraught with wrong, 
so prolific of evil, was seriously contemplated; and its partial suc¬ 
cess is due to the boldness and audacity of the scheme. 


APPENDIX. 




APPENDIX. 


MEMORIAL TO THE SECRETARY OF THE NAVY. 


Charlestown, August 19, 1868. 

To the Honorable Gideon Welles, 

- n Secretary of the Navy: — 

The undersigned citizens of Charlestown, aware of your official 
visit to the Navy Yard of the United States, in this city, respect¬ 
fully ask your attention to the subject of the proposed Maverick 
Bridge and the contingent suggestion of the removal or discontin¬ 
uance of the Navy Yard. The act of the legislature authorizing 
the Maverick Bridge was passed towards the close of the session, 
by a barely consttiutional majority, against the earnest protest of 
the Governor of the State ; and is unquestionably a measure adverse 
to the interests of the city of Boston, as a commercial port, and 
still more directly injurious to the property and prosperity of the 
cities of Charlestown and Chelsea. Under these circumstances, in 
view of the present and prospective importance of the port of Bos¬ 
ton, as one of the chief commercial depots of the country, we cannot 
err in the statement that the erection of the proposed structure 
would be unwise, against the opinions and wishes of the people, 
and equally against the prosperity and commercial importance of 
the State. 

The-great consideration that the bridge will be an obstruction 
to the free navigation of the harbor, is so overwhelming in itself 



30 


ARGUMENT AGAINST THE 


that it is almost unnecessary to refer to the details or statistics of 
property and trade, sure to be affected injuriously, if not utterly 
destroyed by its erection: including as it would, the almost imme¬ 
diate abandonment by the government of one of its most complete 
and costly naval establishments, justly the pride of the country, 
renowned in its history and reliable in its greatest emergencies. 
The Department through which the vast sums appropriated by 
Congress, for the completion of this great naval establishment, 
have been expended, cannot ignore its commanding location, its 
means for doing the work of the government, the cost of its 
removal and the great interests, State and national, which would 
thereby be sacrificed. No advantages which may be claimed to 
result from the proposed structure, are to be found adequate to 
justify a measure so unwise and destructive. If its effects were 
limited to the Navy Yard alone, and were in fact no detriment to 
the city of Boston itself, to Charlestown and the already embar¬ 
rassed commercial interests of the more inland cities and towns, 
the single consideration that it destroyed one of the finest naval 
establishments of the country, for no adequate advantage to other 
interests, would be paramount against its erection. So that, equally 
destructive to the interests of government and the interests of 
commerce, a scheme so fraught with injury to both, cannot receive 
either the consent of the people, or the countenance of the gov¬ 
ernment. 

We have said that there was no absolute demand for the Maverick 
Bridge: East Boston is situated with regard to Boston almost pre¬ 
cisely as the city of Brooklyn is with regard to New York — with 
this difference — the former may be reached by land conveyance 

through Charlestown and Chelsea from Boston, aud the latter can- 

% 

not be so reached, under any emergency, from New York. The 
ferry-boats, in each case, capable of carrying everything that offers, 
ply regularly at all times of the day or night, at rates but little 
higher than the average tolls of bridges, and if not ample to serve 
the demands of public travel and transportation, are easily to be 
increased. Nothing beyond East Boston, having a free route by 
land through Charlestown now, would be materially benefited by 


PROPOSED MAVERICK BRIDGE. 


31 


the proposed bridge, but would participate in the general damage 
it would impose upon the commerce of the metropolitan city. 

The harbor of Boston has heretofore been an object of considera¬ 
tion and care on the part of the government, and large sums 
have been expended by it in its survey, in the exploration and 
preservation of its basins and estuaries, in the care of its islands 
and the maintenance of its channels; and at the present time, 
is engaged in deepening its channels and removing obstructions 
which may impede or impair the commerce of the city. Yet it is 
apparent to the eye, ^ven to the thought, of all who know the topo¬ 
graphy of the inner harbor of Boston, that nature, nor all the powers 
of the tempest or washing away of the islands, has ever placed any 
obstacles to its free navigation for vessels of every tonnage, equal 
to that contemplated by the erection of Maverick Bridge. It is in 
this sense, a measure opposed to all improvement, rendering com¬ 
paratively valueless all that has heretofore beeu done for the benefit 
of the harbor. It is as if an almost completed enterprise of gigantic 
magnitude and of immense utility for all coming time, were to be 
blasted or at least restricted, instead of being perfected. No filling 
up of basins or estuaries, not even the filling up of the main chan¬ 
nel of the harbor, would be so detrimental to the commerce of the 
city of Boston, as the building of this bridge — for these would all 
be susceptible of remedy or removal, which a bridge once built, 
would not be. There is no avoiding the conclusion that it would 
be an obstruction not to be abated by dredging, not to be destroyed 
by blasting, closing up for all time, the largest, most important and 
by far the most valuable portion of the harbor for all naval and 
commercial purposes. 

It is not alone any narrowness or obstructions in the channels, 
or any filling up of estuaries, that has engaged the attention 
and effort of government and people ; but the restricted limits of 
the harbor itself, the limited water frontage, and still more strin¬ 
gent limits of deep water accomodations, both for wharfage and 
anchorage, have engaged the attention of the State and city 
authorities and the merchants. With a view to the extension 
and enlargement of these, various plans and large enterprises 


32 


ARGUMENT AGAINST THE 


have been undertaken, and at the present time, others involving 
vast labor and enormous outlays, are contemplated by the author¬ 
ities of the State and private corporations — the particulars and 
details of which, — so well known in’ this community, — may 
be readily furnished. Under these circumstances, in view of the 
growth of the country and the expansion of its population over the 
vast inland areas of the West; in view of its increasing commerce 
with other countries ; the vast accumulations of produce and man¬ 
ufactures to be exported, and the even greater quantities of 
manufactured goods and raw material to *be imported to meet 
the growing demands of the country; when all the capacities of 
commerce, all the tonnage of the country, are sure to be required 
to meet the emergencies, it seems incredible that parties should 
be found, from whatever motives of personal aggrandizement, who 
desire to abridge these means, or a State legislature, acting for the 
interests of the whole people, that should afford them any encour¬ 
agement. The whole tendency of the measure proposed, ostensibly 
for the benefit of a small population, justly seeking facilities which 
they deem advantageous, is to reduce absolutely and essentially, 
the commercial advantages and the commercial importance of the 
city and the State, sacrificing the larger interests to the lesser and 
the general interests of the whole to the private benefit of the 
few. In view of the true policy of the State — if anything 
pertaining to the policy of a thoughtful and nurturing gov¬ 
ernment could have been recognized at all — to say that 
the act is simply suicidal, is to characterize it in the 

mildest terms of reproach. Today, tomorrow, every day, the 

«» 

true interests of Boston, and therefore of the Commonwealth, 
and therefore of the nation, is to encourage, enlarge and extend 
the commerce of the country, and by every means in the power of 
government facilitate its transactions and promote its growth. No 
other policy can govern an intelligent and progressive people; no 
other policy can promote their prosperity, elevate their civilization, 
extend their influence and promote the common welfare. 

The portion of the harbor of Boston to be affected by the Maverick 
Bridge is by far, for purposes of commerce, its most valuable por- 


PROPOSED MA.VERICK BRIDGE. 


33 


tion. Almost any number of bridges in the southerly section of 
the city, across the narrow channel which passes along its wharves, 
would be nearly harmless compared with the one bridge con¬ 
templated. From a point in the harbor, near the end of Cen¬ 
tral YV harf, to the spacious basin lying between the northerly end of 
Boston, the cities of Charlestown and Chelsea and East Boston, 
(the channel of separation, in fact, between Boston and its island 
W ard,) the lineal distance is about forty-five hundred feet, and 
included in this space is the deepest water of the harbor; and the 
only part of the harbor excepting the channel to the sea, where 
large vessels can lie at anchor. It is the opinion of Com. Kodgers, 
Commandant of the Charlestown Navy Yard, that no large mer¬ 
chant or naval vessel can venture to anchor within five hundred 
feet of the line of the bridge on either side of it, which together 
with the width of the bridge and piers, would take from the forty- 
five hundred feet of anchorage ground at least one-third of the 
whole, leaving, it is probable, the larger space above the bridge. 
It would thus not only destroy the proper but limited anchorage 
ground of the harbor for the larger class of vessels, but also leave 
by far the larger portion of the wharf property of the city itself 
above the bridge. All the wharves in Charlestown, (at any one of 
which a man-of-war will float at low water,) all the wharves in 
Chelsea and two-thirds of those at East Boston, together with the 
Navy Yard, would be shut out from any convenient access to the 
sea. Nor is this all: the commerce of the city of Charlestown, 
above the present bridges, of the city of Cambridge and towns on 
Charles Kiver, is represented in the statement that over eighteen 
thousand passages of vessels per annum are made through the 
draws of existing bridges; and these together with not less than 
six thousand other passages of vessels going up to Chelsea and 
Mystic Biver, and thousands more to the neighboring wharves of 
Boston and East Boston, would be compelled to pass through the 
draw, or draws, (for one would not accommodate the commerce it 
would obstruct,) of the proposed bridge. It can be no exaggera¬ 
tion, we think, to say that not less than three-fourths of the entire 
tonnage of Boston, foreign and domestic, would be compelled to 


34 


ARGUMENT AGAINST THE 


pass through the draws of the Maverick Bridge, should it ever be 
built, — this, until the commerce of the port dwindles down to fish¬ 
ing vessels alone, the bridge itself cannot accommodate. How 
much the commerce of Boston and Charlestown would be likely to 
increase under these circumstances, it would not be difficult to 
calculate; how rapidly it would diminish would be a still more 
obvious problem. 

With respect to the removal of the Navy Yard, or its discontin¬ 
uance as a government establishment, we presume either alternative 
to be dependent upon the free navigation of its waters and unob¬ 
structed access to its wharves and workshops, — without which, 
beyond question, it would be comparatively useless to the govern 
ment and comparatively worthless as a means of defence to the 
people. The Charlestown Navy Yard was one of the earliest 
foundations of the government preparatory to the formation of its 
great arm of national defence, now so efficient, — the Navy. The 
interest taken in the enterprise by the citizens of Charlestown, at 
the time, and the sacrifices made in its behalf, were accepted by 
the government as assurances of the patriotic feelings of the people 
and their devotion to the best interests of the country We may 
add that the wisdom of the location then made, in the chief com¬ 
mercial port of the country, has been demonstrated through a 
series of seventy years and by large sums of money expended by 
the government for its completion and the development of its 
capacities. So that today, unless we have been misadvised, the 
Charlestown Navy Yard may safely challenge comparison, in many 
important particulars, with any similar depot in the world. Its 
spacious dock, its foundry and ropewalk, its ample workshops, ship- 
houses and storehouses, are available to an extraordinary extent 
by their very compactness as by their complete and substantial 
character. 

To destroy such an establishment — the growth of nearly three- 
quarters of a century, under the most liberal appropriations of the 
government, now representing tens of millions of dollars in its real 
property and material — completed and almost perfected in some 
of its departments; capable of meeting the largest and the most 


PROPOSED MAVERICK BRIDGE. 


35 


pressing demands of the government — seems so unwise and ill- 
advised, that we do not know how to characterize it by any single 
epithet in the language; and we presume, under other circum¬ 
stances, never would be contemplated by the government. It seems 
impossible that such a result could have beeu considered; and we 
do but repeat a large public judgment when we say that intelligent 
gentlemen are unwilling to believe, even with the grant of the 
legislature, before them, that the work proposed can ever be accom¬ 
plished. To create such an establishment as the Charlestown Navy 
Yard — to say nothiug of its location, of the facilities of transpor¬ 
tation with all parts of the country and for the attainment of its 
supplies — has been the work of more than two generations. Its 
destruction is not a matter to be lightly contemplated or capriciously 
disposed of. It is in fact a question of great interest to the nation 
and the State. The Navy Yard has become identified not merely 
with the city of Charlestown, or the city of Boston, but with the 
Commonwealth of Massachusetts, and all her interests, manufac¬ 
turing, commercial and industrial, and she has a right to look upon 
it as one of the evidences of her importance and the means of her 
defence. Its establishment was a compliment to her position and 
services, her commercial importance and growing greatness. With¬ 
out presuming to urge her claims upon the geueral government, we 
may be allowed to say that she has done nothing, unless it be the 
act we condemn, to forfeit its respect and confidence. 

Entertaining these views of the questions considered, in common, 
we believe, with the mass of our people — and feeling how deeply 
the determination of them will affect a large portion of our commu¬ 
nity, who are from their position wholly uninformed in regard to 
them— we have felt it to be due to them, just and proper on our 
part, and respectful to the Head of the Navy Department of the 
country, to present them in this form. 

We remain, with assurances of our high respect and considera¬ 
tion, your obedient servants. 

[Signed by Liverus Hull, Mayor of Charlestown, and a num¬ 
ber of other citizens, and presented to the Secretary of the Navy 
on the occasion of his visit to the Navy Yard.] 


36 


MAVERICK BRIDGE. 


EXTRACT FROM THE SPEECH! 


OE JAMES B. FRANCIS, 


OF LOWELL. 


“The great objections to the bridge are its interference with com¬ 
merce and the Navy Yard. A very large part of the vessels enter¬ 
ing Boston harbor go above the ferries, near which the bridge is 
proposed to be built. It appeared that last.year about 16,500 
vessels passed the draw bridges above the proposed site for the 
bridge, and that about as many more stopped at the various 
wharves between the proposed site and the draw bridges, making 
about 33,000 vessels which passed the proposed site last year, say 
one hundred per day on an average. ° ° ° ° 

“An average of one hundred vessels a day passing the draw, will 
be a serious interruption to the travel over the bridge. Fronrthe 
experience at Providence, Albany and Chicago, the petitioners at¬ 
tempted to show that by the use of steam power, the time required 
for the opening and shutting of the draw and the passage of a ves¬ 
sel would not exceed three minutes; I do not think they make suf¬ 
ficient allowance for the prodigious size of the proposed draw, which 
is four hundred feet long and seventy-five feet wide : more than 
twice the length of this State House, and a quarter part wider than 
this hall ; it will cover nearly three-quarters of an acre, and its 
weight cannot be less than a thousand tons, and probably nearer 
two thousand. This enormous mass cannot be started or stopped 
suddenly. Then again, time must be given to clear the bridge 
of teams and passengers before the opening is commenced; this 
will require at least two minutes. So that if we take the time re¬ 
quired for opening and shutting, and passing a vessel, at three 

• • • •*••• 

minutes, as the petitioners claim, which 1 think is much less than 
it will average, we shall have five minutes’ interruption to the travel 
at the passage of each vessel, making au average of five hundred 


MAVERICK BRIDGE. 


87 


minutes per day, or eight hours and twenty minutes, that the travel 
will be interrupted. ° * ° ° 

Clearly, one of two things must be the result if this bridge is 
built : either the interruption to travel over the bridge will be 
very great or there will be great interference to the free movement 
of vessels, and consequent injury to commerce. Both interests will 
probably suffer to a serious extent, but commerce I fear will suffer 
the most. 


LETTER FROM PROFESSOR PEIRCE. 


To the Honorable ilie Commissioners of the United States upon the estab¬ 
lishment of the Maverick Bridge , the undersigned respectfully states : 

That, having regarded the commission as especially intended to 
obtain an impartial judgment, unbiased by the previous expressions 
of opinions, and having himself entire confidence in the wisdom 
and experience of the Board now sitting, and in their acknowledged 
ability to consider all the questions involved in it, he has thought 
it more judicious that he should not take a prominent position in 
reference to the issue. But he trusts that it will be received as a 
proper performance of his duty if he simply states that he has con¬ 
tinued his consideration of the subject with unabated interest, and 
that his inquiries confirm him in the opinions he has repeatedly 
given. He believes that no bridge can be built to East Boston 
which will not delay navigation much more than it will facilitate 
trade : that for every ton which will be expedited in transit over 
the bridge, there will be many tons obstructed in the passage 
throught its draws, and that the gain to the real estate of East 
Boston will be more than equalled by the loss of value of the 
wharves. The piers of the bridge will be an obstruction to ice, 
and will serve to keep it accumulating above the bridge, to the 
manifest injury of a very large commerce. Each pier will also be 
a contraction of the channel for the flow of water, and will acceler- 


38 


MAVERICK BRIDGE. 


ate its velocity, from which would result the same kind of injury 
as that to which the harbor of Boston has already been subjected, 
by the bridges across the Mystic and Charles riv r ers. The scouring 
influence of the water would be increased and material taken from 
the bottom in the vicinity of the bridge would be deposited with 
the previous deposits at those points just where the harbor is most 
vulnerable. 

In one word, then, it would appear that while the proposed 
bridge may be a small local benefit, it would be a great public in¬ 
jury, and especially injurious to the Navy Yard at Charlestown. 

All of which is respectfully submitted, 

BENJAMIN PEIRCE, 

Superintedent U. S. Coast Survey. 

Cambridge, Mass., October 3, 1868. 


Custom House, Boston. I 

Collector’s Office, Aug. 28, 1868. } 

W. W. Wiieildon. Esq., Dear Sir : 

I enclose the figures you desire and would refer you for the de¬ 
tails to the annual report of the Board of Trade. 

The statistics give a very imperfect idea of the coasting trade, 
as very few vessels in that trade enter or clear. There are no 
means of ascertaining the number of vessels that arrive at the port 
in a year. 

I am glad that you are interested in opposing the mad idea of a 
bridge across the centre of Boston Harbor. If it succeeds, notice 
should be given that no commerce is wanted at this place. I would 
also suggest two finger posts, one pointing toward New York and one 
to Portland. 

The bridge is of course for people to go to and from Boston 
proper to East Boston, but no one will wish to go either way, if we 
give up our harbor, and lose our commerce. 

In haste, 1 am respectfully, 

THOMAS RUSSELL. 


CHARLESTOWN WIIARYES. 


39 


BUSINESS OF CHARLESTOWN WHARVES. 


TUDOR WHARF COMPANY. 

350 to 400 vessels are annually loaded with ice. GO vessels 
annually are loaded for India and China. 7 vessels are now on 
their return, the duties on whose cargoes will amount to $400,000 
in gold. In the protest of the Tudor Company it is stated that 
“beginning at Lewis’s wharf, there are outside of the proposed 
bridge in Boston proper, 8 deep water wharves; inside 18 in Bos¬ 
ton, and 8 in Charlestown—26 in all.” 

HITTINGER’S WHARF. 

200,000 bushels of oats shipped from Hittinger’s (Gray’s) wharf, 
in the winter of 1867-8, equal to 40 cargoes of 5000 bushels. 

50,000 tons Ice average shipment of ice yearly for past six 
years, equal to 200 cargoes of 250 tons each. 

1,000,000 feet and upwards of lumber passed over the wharf 
in 1867. 13,200 bales of bay, equal to 44 cargoes of 50 tons. 

Before the war the quantity of Ice shipped was nearly double. 
In addition to the above, cargoes of coal and naval stores, sulphur 
and other merchandize, are landed on the wharf whenever room 
cau be given for the same. 

DAMON’S WHARF. 

The business of Damon’s Wharf is wharfage and storage of all 
goods in bond, a large proportion being from the East Indies and 
Europe. There have arrived at the wharf seventy-one (71) vessels 
most of them of heavy tonnage with full cargoes, a large number 
of which were from the East Indies. Also twenty-one (21) ves¬ 
sels, principally of a large class, have received cargoes for South 
American and European ports. The number of vessels above men¬ 
tioned is increased by vessels in the domestic or coastwise trade 
to about two hundred, (200.) 



40 


CHARLESTOWN WHARVES. 


OAK MAN & ELDRIDGE. 

1 AO vessels per year, chiefly with coal, averaging abouo tlnee 
hundred and fifty tons each. 

ADDISON GAGE & Co. 

200 vessels per year. 69,000 tons of Tee shipped, besides saw¬ 
dust received. Lumber and merchandize of every description to a 
large amount shipped in the ice vessels. 

CHARLESTOWN GAS COMPANY. 

15 to 20 vessels, about five thousand (5000) tons oi coal per 
annum, and 4 to 6 vessels with clay, retorts, &e. 

CHESTER GUILD & SONS. . 

30 to 40 vessels per annum, with bark for leather factory, 
2500 to 3000 cords per year. 

FRANKLIN HOPKINS, Jr. 

One vessel a week for nine months. Can accommodate a vessel 
drawing 15 feet of water. Another bridge would increase cost, &c. 

EDMANDS & Co. 

25 or 26 vessels on an average per year. 1455 tons of clay, 
705 cords of wood, 231 tons of coal. 

YOUNG & JOHNSON, Warren Bridge. 

275 vessels with lobsters, for the year ending Sept. 1, 1868— 
causing the draw of Charles River Bridge to be opened 550 times. 




















































